Tacoma is a dog, should I think twice before adding FWC?

[Josie'slandcruiser]

Hi all,

I have been driving a 2007 Tacoma Access Cab (4.0 6 speed) for 5.5 years. Coming from a 1991 four cylinder truck it seems like a powerhouse.

I did a 3,300 mile road trip in this 2007 Tacoma in August 2017 and averaged about 18 mpg; this was from sea level to over 12,000 feet in Colorado; from slow four wheeling to hours long 70 - 80 mph freeway cruising. Truck is a TRD model that is running on 265/75R16 AT tires (one inch taller than stock.)

Regards,

Alan

 

[phsycle]

Can't think of a better comparison, can you? Yes, YMMV. Mine certainly does.

Fuelly is the best resource in my mind. What’s better?

Honestly? A test strictly for both city and more importantly, highway----EPA rating. Controlled environment, where the variables are taken out. Fuelly has a good sample size (not large, by any means) but there are too many variables that aren't factored out.

In all of my vehicles owned so far, driving in ideal conditions, my cars have all hit the EPA ratings. That's the gauge for me.

 

[skyfree]

Honestly? A test strictly for both city and more importantly, highway----EPA rating. Controlled environment, where the variables are taken out. Fuelly has a good sample size (not large, by any means) but there are too many variables that aren't factored out.

In all of my vehicles owned so far, driving in ideal conditions, my cars have all hit the EPA ratings. That's the gauge for me.

My 2018 Colorado ZR2 Duramax seldom gets as low as the EPA rating of 19/22/20, but it's reasonably close. On a recent 3,000 mile trip I was getting right around 23 hand calculated. I cruise at 77 on the freeway, but this trip included a lot of 60-65 on 2-lanes in Canada where I hit as high as 25 on a tank with winter blend diesel. On the pure freeway sections it was 22-24 depending on wind.

The problem with the Colorado is that the DSSV shocks aren't really happy with heavy loads so it's in the same boat as the Tacoma. I think you could get aftermarket (ICON?) stuff to improve that, but the beauty of this truck is the smooth ride unloaded combined with the great damping on big hits off road. I wouldn't want to mess with that, so it will be Gofast or just a tent extension on the camper shell for me.

 

[phsycle]

My 2018 Colorado ZR2 Duramax seldom gets as low as the EPA rating of 19/22/20, but it's reasonably close. On a recent 3,000 mile trip I was getting right around 23 hand calculated. I cruise at 77 on the freeway, but this trip included a lot of 60-65 on 2-lanes in Canada where I hit as high as 25 on a tank with winter blend diesel. On the pure freeway sections it was 22-24 depending on wind.

The problem with the Colorado is that the DSSV shocks aren't really happy with heavy loads so it's in the same boat as the Tacoma. I think you could get aftermarket (ICON?) stuff to improve that, but the beauty of this truck is the smooth ride unloaded combined with the great damping on big hits off road. I wouldn't want to mess with that, so it will be Gofast or just a tent extension on the camper shell for me.

That's interesting you say that, because when I talk to diesel owners (VW Sportwagen, Ram/GC, etc) they all seem to be getting above EPA ratings.

 

[dman93]

To the OP, I'm a little confused by your assessment of your truck's power (I have a similar 3rd gen with automatic). Yes, low end torque is disappointing, though I would think with an MT you could pick the gear that provides the rpm and torque you need, more predictably than the AT even in S mode. But does it have the balls to make a pass on a two lane road? Absolutely, if you pick a low enough gear and let it rev. I drove across the country (both ways actually) crossing big mountains, including back and forth over the Continental Divide several times, no FWC, but with a pretty fully load in the bed, two bikes on a hitch rack, shell and RTT on top, and I never lacked for horsepower. Averaged over 20 mpg too. All that said, to me part of the Tacoma appeal is smaller size and maneuverability, and I would think a big camper would take away a lot of that. Plus, the Tacoma's mpg is more affected by load than on a larger more powerful truck, narrowing some of the Tacoma's advantage there. I've only briefly driven a couple of 4.0 2nd gen's, but I owned a 3.4 5VZE for a few years and the 3.5 is much more powerful ... on top. And better mpg, though not by much.

 

[rruff]

Honestly? A test strictly for both city and more importantly, highway----EPA rating. Controlled environment, where the variables are taken out.

For comparisons I think Fuelly is a lot better. Apparently a lot of manufacturers are gaming the EPA tests, not just with diesels. The actual MPG you get will vary, but that isn't the point. The point is to compare one to another.

There's enough data on Fuelly to average out variables and you can assume that similar vehicles will be used in a similar fashion.

 

[rruff]

To the OP, I'm a little confused by your assessment of your truck's power (I have a similar 3rd gen with automatic). Yes, low end torque is disappointing, though I would think with an MT you could pick the gear that provides the rpm and torque you need, more predictably than the AT even in S mode. But does it have the balls to make a pass on a two lane road? Absolutely, if you pick a low enough gear and let it rev.

We get spoiled. HP is one of those things where the ideal amount is always "more". I lived/explored in a '84 Toyota 2wd with a camper (big camper at the end) and I didn't hold up traffic. I think it had 120hp when it was young. But if you are used to 400hp, then 300hp seems deficient.

 

[Dalko43]

We get spoiled. HP is one of those things where the ideal amount is always "more". I lived/explored in a '84 Toyota 2wd with a camper (big camper at the end) and I didn't hold up traffic. I think it had 120hp when it was young. But if you are used to 400hp, then 300hp seems deficient.

It's not really about "more horsepower," it's about how the existing horsepower is delivered. The tried-and-true naturally aspirated Toyota gasoline engines (perhaps excluding the thirsty v8) all require downshifting for even half-decent horsepower delivery. In comparison to more modern turbo gasoline and turbo diesel setup's, they just seem a bit outclassed.

 

[Clutch]

Honestly? A test strictly for both city and more importantly, highway----EPA rating. Controlled environment, where the variables are taken out. Fuelly has a good sample size (not large, by any means) but there are too many variables that aren't factored out.

In all of my vehicles owned so far, driving in ideal conditions, my cars have all hit the EPA ratings. That's the gauge for me.

For comparisons I think Fuelly is a lot better. Apparently a lot of manufacturers are gaming the EPA tests, not just with diesels. The actual MPG you get will vary, but that isn't the point. The point is to compare one to another.

There's enough data on Fuelly to average out variables and you can assume that similar vehicles will be used in a similar fashion.

Fuelly is good for a ball park general idea. Yeah there are gong to be some anomalies at either end of the spectrum...but fairly spot on for the most part. As rruf mentioned earlier YMMV

We get spoiled. HP is one of those things where the ideal amount is always "more". I lived/explored in a '84 Toyota 2wd with a camper (big camper at the end) and I didn't hold up traffic. I think it had 120hp when it was young. But if you are used to 400hp, then 300hp seems deficient.

It's not really about "more horsepower," it's about how the existing horsepower is delivered. The tried-and-true naturally aspirated Toyota gasoline engines (perhaps excluding the thirsty v8) all require downshifting for even half-decent horsepower delivery. In comparison to more modern turbo gasoline and turbo diesel setup's, they just seem a bit outclassed.

You can make the Tacoma work...years ago I went from a mildly "built" big block F250, to a Toyota 22RE....took some adjusting, since you have to ring the Toyota's neck to get it down the road. But it will get you there.

With the new trucks...driving a fullsize with either a V8 or turbo V6 back to back with a Tacoma....yeah huge difference...and then compare the sticker price and capabilities between them. Tacoma makes less sense...it really isn't all that little anymore either. Don't see any real advantages a midsize over a fullsize. Especially if you're going to haul a camper and max out the payload.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It's not really about "more horsepower," it's about how the existing horsepower is delivered. The tried-and-true naturally aspirated Toyota gasoline engines (perhaps excluding the thirsty v8) all require downshifting for even half-decent horsepower delivery. In comparison to more modern turbo gasoline and turbo diesel setup's, they just seem a bit outclassed.

I've owned a few different Toyotas with tired 2F, both carb and EFI 22R, 5VZ and now the 1GR. They've all been happier when you keep them in their power band. The 4 cylinders especially require getting the engine RPM up and are more diesel-like in that respect. I think Americans are used to driving V8s and think an engine needs to accelerate immediately and have a significant amount of the engine's power available off idle. Since my habits are based on that 22R-E where I wasn't afraid to keep the revs up and hold no particular impulse to upshift constantly I feel my truck has a lot of power. It's been many years since I owned an American V8 and even then it was a 1956 Plymouth with a 273 and 2-speed auto. In there was a straight 6 Ford truck, 1983 Honda Civic, V6 Ford Ranger with an auto (which definitely shook any desire to own an automatic transmission ever again) and Toyotas after (nothing but Toyota pickups since 1999). I've never been afraid of RPMs and haven't known a real rocket of a car.

 

[rruff]

It's not really about "more horsepower," it's about how the existing horsepower is delivered. The tried-and-true naturally aspirated Toyota gasoline engines (perhaps excluding the thirsty v8) all require downshifting for even half-decent horsepower delivery. In comparison to more modern turbo gasoline and turbo diesel setup's, they just seem a bit outclassed.

Well, the 2.4l 22re delivered very little power anywhere. But it had a 5spd and was adequate to get wherever I wanted to go. Sure some highway mountain passes were taken in 3rd, but I wasn't slowing down traffic. Offroad I'd slip the clutch a lot to keep it moving, but the clutch still lasted 200k miles.

The 5.7l is beast IMO. But some people don't think it's enough either. "You can never have too much..."

I don't doubt that the US engines are designed for peak power at the expense of some torque, but that's the market being chased. Macho image and styling, big HP number for bragging rights, and good street performance. The little diesel engines being sold overseas are way down on power compared to the US models, and they get a lot better MPG as well, >30mpg combined.

Probably the best thing a person can do if they feel the Tacoma is a dog is regear. I wouldn't spend the money, but...

 

[phsycle]

The 5.7l is beast IMO. But some people don't think it's enough either. "You can never have too much..."
...

Compared to the new turbo's, which seem to have extremely good torque down low, the 5.7 seems to lack a little bit (comparatively). Compared to my Tacoma? It is a beast.

There was a time that I wanted all out power. Give me the turbo's and big block V8's. These days, I gravitate to picking the right tool for the job. If I towed any significant weight on a regular basis, I guess I would have a full size truck. But given my uses, I sometimes feel the V6 is even too much. Given some people happily drive around in a Chinook with those tiny engines, I probably could do with much less.

 

[Trikebubble]

Compared to the new turbo's, which seem to have extremely good torque down low, the 5.7 seems to lack a little bit (comparatively). Compared to my Tacoma? It is a beast.

There was a time that I wanted all out power. Give me the turbo's and big block V8's. These days, I gravitate to picking the right tool for the job. If I towed any significant weight on a regular basis, I guess I would have a full size truck. But given my uses, I sometimes feel the V6 is even too much. Given some people happily drive around in a Chinook with those tiny engines, I probably could do with much less.

I have a 2014 Tundra with the 5.7 and 4.3 gears. I have a Hawk on the truck, along with other "goodies" which add more weight and this truck truly is a beast. Push the magical little tow/haul button and it has even better power delivery and massive low end torque. There is not another gas powered 1/2 ton truck on the market that I would trade my Tundra for. I do not care for diesels, so I guess there is no truck I would trade her for. I just came back over the mountains from a trip to Vancouver, and I tested her a bit on a few grades. I can pull 60-70mph fully loaded up a very long grade with no issues at all. At 60-70 mph the truck isn't even sweating, and I can easily accelerate from there. I don't drive like this normally, but I wanted to let her spread her wings a bit and see how she handled the added weight of the Hawk on mountain passes.

I came from an Xterra, which had a pretty powerful V6. When I was deciding on what size truck to get I decided it was well worth the compromise of having a larger truck to also have real power.
MPG's are not a primary concern of mine. Having the available power to get where I want without winding out some poor V6 up one mountain pass after another is far more important. Having available power to get out and safely pass big rigs on mountain roads is far more important.
I was well aware that I'd be giving up some of the nimbleness and possibly be restricted from accessing some tighter spots that we had in the Xterra, but the trade-off is well worth it.

As far as to the OP's original question, I would say if you are not happy with the power of your Tacoma, and it is feasible to do so, sell it and buy a Tundra. You will likely not want for power again.

 

[bkg]

I don’t think the tow Hall mode for the transmission has my impact on low end torque.. slight throttle response, maybe. Moving shifts up, definitely. But not sure about the torque idea

 

[phsycle]

I have a 2014 Tundra with the 5.7 and 4.3 gears. I have a Hawk on the truck, along with other "goodies" which add more weight and this truck truly is a beast. Push the magical little tow/haul button and it has even better power delivery and massive low end torque. There is not another gas powered 1/2 ton truck on the market that I would trade my Tundra for. I do not care for diesels, so I guess there is no truck I would trade her for. I just came back over the mountains from a trip to Vancouver, and I tested her a bit on a few grades. I can pull 60-70mph fully loaded up a very long grade with no issues at all. At 60-70 mph the truck isn't even sweating, and I can easily accelerate from there. I don't drive like this normally, but I wanted to let her spread her wings a bit and see how she handled the added weight of the Hawk on mountain passes.

I came from an Xterra, which had a pretty powerful V6. When I was deciding on what size truck to get I decided it was well worth the compromise of having a larger truck to also have real power.
MPG's are not a primary concern of mine. Having the available power to get where I want without winding out some poor V6 up one mountain pass after another is far more important. Having available power to get out and safely pass big rigs on mountain roads is far more important.
I was well aware that I'd be giving up some of the nimbleness and possibly be restricted from accessing some tighter spots that we had in the Xterra, but the trade-off is well worth it.

As far as to the OP's original question, I would say if you are not happy with the power of your Tacoma, and it is feasible to do so, sell it and buy a Tundra. You will likely not want for power again.

That 5.7L is a great engine. It's a bit thirsty, but with a FWC, the MPG is probably the same as any other gas engine. Even the ecoboost.

But there is one big hangup for me. It's the same as what I mentioned earlier. Payload. Tundra's just don't have it. You're at what? 1,200 or at most, 1,600lbs? That just doesn't seem enough unless you are packing ultra-light (which would be funny, since you ARE in a FWC). Dry weight of those things are over 1k lbs. Too close for me, even if I were going minimalist. Now, I do understand that you may not have issues, nor anyone else, pulling that. Just look at all the overloaded trucks on this site. But weight does take a toll on the trucks. There are components that will wear prematurely. Andrew St. P White talks about this extensively. The specific GVWR was given on that truck for a reason. I would personally, never go above it, much less near it. Same thing on towing capacities as well.